IPv6 Address Planning

[Roger Jorgensen]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Cody Lerum wrote:

> The idea was to stay on a boundary for ease of subnetting, as well as
> provide aggregation via /112's within /80's.
> 
> /64's are possible, but will require burning a /48 for each Distribution
> site, and I was trying to reserve /48 level assignments for downstream
> organizations. While also only utilizing a /48 for my organization.

why a /48 for each? Use a /48 globaly in your network for p2p links? Or 
break out smaller pieces from the /48, a /56 or /52 for each site. (know 
it's not widely accepted but the last discussion the topic seemed to agree 
/52's are okay?)


> Seemed to make sense to me, but this is my first run at a v6 addressing
> plan.
> 
> -C 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sander Steffann [mailto:steffann at nederland.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:57 PM
> To: Cody Lerum; ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Address Planning
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > Within these /80's are individual /112's for PTP links.
> 
> Why use a /112 for point-to-point links? The only reference I can find
> is rfc3627, and that one does not really seem to advise to use a /112
> except when using a /64 is not possible... So I am curious about why a
> /112 is used.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sander.
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 


------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              |
rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no        | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no      | roger at jorgensen.no
-------------------------------------------------------